Bienvenue

Bienvenue sur le Blogue du CRL du Jeune Barreau de Montréal (JBM)! Ce blogue est dédié à la diffusion de contenu juridique pour tous les avocats du Québec et plus spécifiquement pour les membres du JBM. Le contenu est offert grâce à une communauté d'avocats bénévoles impliqués sur le Comité recherche et législation du JBM. Si vous désirez devenir auteur ou contribuer au succès de ce blogue, faites-nous part de votre intérêt.

lundi 21 août 2017

Cancellation fees of wireless telephone contracts : class action lawsuit

By Vinay Desai
Lawyer
Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, L.L.P.


In January 2011, the Quebec Superior Court (the “Superior Court”) authorized the plaintiff, Mr. Denis Gagnon (the “Representative”) to commence a class action lawsuit against Bell Moblité Inc. (“Bell”) concerning cancellation fees contained in wireless telephone contracts entered into between January 1st, 2007 and June 30, 2010 with Bell. 


The Representative argued that the anticipatory cancellation fees were illegal and contravened articles 2125 and 2129 of the Civil Code of Quebec (the “CCQ”) as well as article 8 of the Consumer Protection Act (the “CPA”).

The members of the class shared the following:
-        they entered into a fixed-term contract with Bell;
-        they then received a discount on the purchase price of a mobile telephone;
-        they resiliated their contracts prior to the expiration of the contracts; and
-        they therefore paid the amounts provided for in the “Cancellation Fees” clause.

The Cancellation Fee clause stipulated that the cancellation fee would be the higher of (i) $100 or (ii) $20 per month remaining on the contract, to a maximum of $400. The Cancellation Fees clause also provided that by selecting a fixed-term contract, the consumer agreed that the cancellation fee was a reasonable estimate of Bell’s damages in the event the contract is resiliated before its term. The customers had the option of an open-ended contract, but with this contract they would not receive a discount on the purchase price of a phone.

In total, Bell collected cancellation fees amounting to roughly $21.3 million as a result of members of the class having resiliated their contracts before their end.

Trial decision

The Superior Court discussed articles 2125 and 2129 of the CCQ noting that the right to resiliate is not public order; however the class members did not waive their right to resiliate the service contract when they agreed to the Cancellation Fees clause. The Superior Court turned to article 2129 CCQ in order to determine the amounts the class members owed to Bell after they resilated the contracts. The judge specifically excluded anticipated profits from the “injury” suffered by Bell and determined that the discount on the purchase price of a mobile phone was the injury actually suffered by Bell. According to the data available, Bell provided an average discount of $236 to customers who agreed to the fixed-term contracts and found that its average claim for Cancellation Fees was $249. In other words, the class members who paid termination fees would have paid, on average $13 more than Bell was allowed to claim under article 2129 CCQ.

As 76,225 class members paid the Cancellation Fees, the trial judge ordered Bell to reimburse $991,316 (76,225 x $13). The trial judge rejected arguments from the Plaintiff that the Cancellation Fees constituted a penal clause or was abusive.

Appeal

The parties appealed the judgment from the Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal (the “Court”), led by the Judge Vézina, focused on Bell’s argument that the Cancellation Fees clause was not abusive and should be applied as well as the Plaintiff’s claim that the trial judge failed to take into account that Bell’s injury decreased monthly.

Is the Cancellation Fees clause abusive?

Bell maintained that the class members waived their right to resiliate the contract under article 2125 CCQ by choosing a fixed-term contract – as opposed to an open-ended contract – and by agreeing to either 12, 24 or 36-month terms. Bell asserted that this waiver results from the fact that the class members were informed of the fees payable in the event of early termination.

The Quebec Court of Appeal (the “Court”) dismissed Bell’s argument that the class members waived their right to resiliate as the Cancellation Fees clause specifically provided for the right for the members to cancel their contract before the term. Bell’s alternative argument was that the lack of waiver of the right to resiliate under article 2125 does not mean that the indemnity owed for early termination must be determined under article 2129 because the class members agreed to a predetermined indemnity by agreeing to the Cancellation Fees clause. Bell argued that the predetermined indemnity for early termination (i.e. the Cancellation Fees) could override or substitute the determination of damages owed under article 2129. The Court explained that in order for the predetermined indemnity contained in the Cancellation Fees clause to be valid, such a clause of adhesion must not be considered abusive.

The Bell contract was clearly a contract of adhesion and notwithstanding if the Cancellation Fees was considered a penal clause, if the clause is considered abusive, the obligation (the predetermined indemnity) may be reduced.

The Court explained that the resiliation of a contract results in the liberation of future commitments and doing so fulfills their obligations entirely. Therefore, the price of the service provided by Bell includes its costs and its profits. The resiliation of the Bell contract would necessarily result in it being deprived of profits it anticipated for the rest of the term, but this loss results from the exercise of a right and not from the failure to perform an obligation. An interpretation of articles 2125 and 2129 led the Court to the conclusion that the legislator intended to favour the customer over the contract or service provider and by including post-resiliation profits in its Cancellation Fees clause, Bell departed from law and frustrated the intention of the legislator. The effect of the clause favoured Bell which, as a result of the resiliation, no longer provided the service (thereby incurring costs), but pocketed the “lost” profits from early termination. The Court determined that this reversal is to the detriment of the consumer and therefore abusive and that the trial judge was right to order the reimbursement of part of the Cancellation Fees collected by Bell.

Bell’s injury decreased month to month

As regards the argument that Bell’s injury decreased month to month, Judges Vézina and Bélanger had differing opinions.

Bell argued that the discount it provided to customers choosing the fixed-term contract represented a marketing expenditure aimed at attracting new customers and ensure revenue. The trial judge decided that the discount granted on the wireless device at the time of the signing of the customer contracts constituted the actual injury Bell suffered and the Court agreed, but qualified this by specifying that Bell’s actual injury is its failure to recover the investment when contracts were terminated early.

The Cancellation Fees clause provided that the fees decrease from $400 to $100 according to the number of months elapsed at the time of resiliation and this was recognition that Bell’s injury decreased over time. The Court did not agree that because Bell’s average discount-related costs were $236, this was what it was entitled to receive explaining that Bell’s injury caused by the resiliation of the contract depended on when resiliation took place.

Judge Vézina explained that as Bell’s injury decreased over time, its corresponding indemnity should be reduced proportionately. The monthly rate paid by customers ensured Bell made a profit as of the first month, enabling it to recover a part of its discount-related costs every month, month after month. In the Court’s view, Bell’s injury decreased in equal proportions from month to month and this is the basis on which the overpayment should be calculated.

Taking into account an event and proportionate rate of reduction of Bell’s injury, Judge Vézina concluded that there was an overpayment from the class members amounting to approximately $10 million as opposed to the roughly $1 million the trial judge determined.

However, Judge Bélanger did not share Judge Vézina’s conclusions on the overpayment explaining that the monthly rates do not reflect amortization and Bell did not recover the discount provided to customers through the monthly rates, which were all the same for all class members.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed both parties’ appeals and upheld the damage award of approximately $1 million in favour of the class members.

An important takeaway from this decision is that the Court upheld the notion that a consumer’s right to resiliate a contract under article 2125 CCQ is not waived where there is an early termination fee. Moreover, the right to resiliate a contract without cause does not necessarily trigger the application of article 2129 CCQ; the parties may determine the damages in advance. However, an agreed-upon and quantified anticipated injury (i.e. the early termination fee) can be set aside if it is considered abusive. In this case, the Court determined that the Cancellation Fee was abusive as it claimed post-cancellation profits beyond what it was owed. The amount contained in the Cancellation Fee was set aside and substituted with an amount calculated by a analysis of article 2129 CCQ.

This decision can be found here.

Aucun commentaire:

Publier un commentaire

L'équipe du Blogue vous encourage à partager avec nous et nos lecteurs vos commentaires et impressions afin d'alimenter les discussions sur le Blogue. Par ailleurs, prenez note du fait qu'aucun commentaire ne sera publié avant d'avoir été approuvé par un modérateur et que l'équipe du Blogue se réserve l'entière discrétion de ne pas publier tout commentaire jugé inapproprié.